QuaeVide wrote:
I had a look through the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition and I was surprised to find many of the images to be rather poor - lighting on the models very flat, bad poses (I blame the photographer when the model isn't professional) and a complete lack of originality. Of course there were some good shots, but I was surprised at how many I would have thrown out if I had produced them. Is this typical of the swimsuit edition?
  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/featur … _swimsuit/

In contrast, Black+White has a special edition called "Melbourne Athletes" (March) which features some superb shots of sports men and women.

Did you watch any of the "shaky-cam" videos? That explains a lot about the stills work too. They actually seem to be trying to make the thing look like some tourist's home videos and snapshots... "Are we having fun yet...?"

I guess after you see one, or two, or twenty, or two hundred, girls in bikinis on beaches they all pretty much start to look the same [both the girls AND the beaches] and so you run out of friggen ideas. I would think that when the commission is to "shoot girls in bikinis on beaches - but don't show any naughty bits" and you have to stick with that it gets damn old damn fast because there is absolutely no flexibility, or even any room for real creativity, in what you are shooting.

Studio36

QuaeVide wrote:
I had a look through the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition and I was surprised to find many of the images to be rather poor - lighting on the models very flat, bad poses (I blame the photographer when the model isn't professional) and a complete lack of originality. Of course there were some good shots, but I was surprised at how many I would have thrown out if I had produced them. Is this typical of the swimsuit edition?
  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/featur … _swimsuit/

In contrast, Black+White has a special edition called "Melbourne Athletes" (March) which features some superb shots of sports men and women.

I doubt their target audiences is going to care one way or the other.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
WoW... I've always thought the SI swimsuit editions were highly overrated as well, and never met anyone that really agreed with me.

Not only are they overrated... some of the pictures are just plain LOUSY!  There's at least one photo featured in their online Calendar which makes the otherwise attractive young lady look like a shapeless old piece of leather.

Maybe SI should hire some people from MM to shoot their swimsuit editions, as I sincerely believe that even many of the novices that I've seen here can shoot better than what I've seen them publish.

Fine fine, even though I haven't done any swimsuit stuff, I will make a sacrifice and volunteer 

Farenell Photography wrote:
I doubt their target audiences is going to care one way or the other.

You are probably right. Just need to check around for who has hair growing on the palms of their hands to know who is buying that stuff. LOL

Studio36

QuaeVide wrote:
I had a look through the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition and I was surprised to find many of the images to be rather poor - lighting on the models very flat, bad poses (I blame the photographer when the model isn't professional) and a complete lack of originality. Of course there were some good shots, but I was surprised at how many I would have thrown out if I had produced them. Is this typical of the swimsuit edition?
  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/featur … _swimsuit/

In contrast, Black+White has a special edition called "Melbourne Athletes" (March) which features some superb shots of sports men and women.

This is a problem QV, and has been for awhile.  Look at Playboy, same problem.  As one poster pointed out, SI long ago ran out of original ways to pose the same basic women (6'0", 110 lbs., blonde, blue eyes) on the same beaches.  Sure SI throws in a token "woman of color" every year, but look at the cover of the magazine for their "Dream Team".  Notice any trends?

Playboy...same lighting style in EVERY shoot.  Has been that way since I've seen it, and that is at least 20 years.  The biggest difference...now they use more lights at each shoot to accomplish the same task.

Black & White allows its photographers a bit more room to go outside the box.  I don't like everything that I see there, but it is certainly more interesting and thought provoking.  You'll likely never be inspired by SI, but B&W is a definite possibility.

Creative Image wrote:
Puleeze!  Let's get real!   The photography may not be very good, but those guys do what they do to perfection: sell magazines.  That's what they're in biz for.  My bet is that they do lots of consumer research, maybe focus groups even, and they deliver what they know will sell.

This is true, and there would be a feeding frenzy in here if SI held a contest to shoot for their magazine. So let's not knock the flat lighting and unimaginative poses. Just about everybody in here would shoot for them. a lot would probably do it TFP

Creative Image wrote:
Puleeze!  Let's get real!   The photography may not be very good, but those guys do what they do to perfection: sell magazines.  That's what they're in biz for.  My bet is that they do lots of consumer research, maybe focus groups even, and they deliver what they know will sell.

Ed Remington wrote:
This is true, and there would be a feeding frenzy in here if SI held a contest to shoot for their magazine. So let's not knock the flat lighting and unimaginative poses. Just about everybody in here would shoot for them. a lot would probably do it TFP

I may be wrong, but my sense is that they did it deliberately.  Reality TV, etc is the rage these days.  I think they wanted to make it look more touristy and make the girls seem more achievable.  They moved from high production value to the tacky sense of a vacation.

Are they right?  Creative Image, in my eyes, hit the nail on the head.  It was done with a purpose rather than not being able to take good photos.  Sales figures will tell if the hit their target.

If it works, there may be hope for GWC's after all.  GWC's of the world unite!  SI is looking for your next bad image.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I may be wrong, but my sense is that they did it deliberately.  Reality TV, etc is the rage these days.  I think they wanted to make it look more touristy and make the girls seem more achievable.  They moved from high production value to the tacky sense of a vacation.

Are they right?  Creative Image, in my eyes, hit the nail on the head.  It was done with a purpose rather than not being able to take good photos.

Exactly. Which is why it was probably the best in decades... And still pretty cheesy...

EDIT: didn't we just have this discussion about Terry Richardson umpteen million times, and YSL ads, etc.? Are people really that bothered if there's an image published in a major venue that's not lit, composed, and focused just like every other damn picture published in every other damn issue of every other damn magazine, billboard, bus sign, point-of-sale-poster, or calendar in the world??? If I showed a lot of you all the new Burberry London fragrance campaign I'd probably hear a chorus cat calls and then some...